Freedom of Information Act
Preliminary Analysis of Processing Trends Shows Importance of Improvement Plans Gao ID: GAO-06-1022T July 26, 2006The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies must provide the public with access to government information, thus enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions. To help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that agencies report annually to the Attorney General, providing specific information about their FOIA operations. In addition, a recent Executive Order directs agencies to develop plans to improve their FOIA operations, including, among other things, goals to reduce backlogs in FOIA requests. GAO has reported previously on the contents of these annual reports for 25 major agencies. For this hearing, GAO was asked to testify both on the annual reports for fiscal year 2005 and on the recently developed improvement plans for these 25 agencies. GAO based its testimony on its ongoing work on these topics. Upon completion of its ongoing review, GAO expects to make recommendations to improve agency implementation of the Executive Order, including efforts to reduce and eliminate backlog.
According to data reported by agencies in their annual reports, the public continues to request and receive increasing amounts of information from the federal government through FOIA; however, excepting one case--the Social Security Administration (SSA)--the rate of increase has flattened in recent years. (SSA reported an additional 16 million requests in 2005, dwarfing those for all other agencies combined, which together total about 2.6 million; SSA attributed this rise to an improvement in its method of counting requests. However, Justice officials have suggested that SSA consider treating the bulk of these requests as non-FOIA requests and thus not include them in future reports.) When SSA's numbers are excluded, data reported by the other 24 major agencies show that the number of requests received increased by 27 percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2005, but by only about 2.5 percent from fiscal year 2004. As more requests come in, agencies also report that they have been processing more of them--25 percent more from 2002 to 2005 (but only about 2.0 percent more than from 2004). Despite processing more requests, agencies have not kept up with the increase in requests being made: the number of pending requests carried over from year to year has been steadily increasing, rising to about 200,000 in fiscal year 2005--43 percent more than in 2002. The rate of increase in requests pending is also growing: the increase from fiscal year 2004 to 2005 is 24 percent, compared to 11 percent from 2003 to 2004. Most of the agency improvement plans discussed reducing backlog, but not all consistently followed the Executive Order or implementing guidance provided by the Justice Department. Of the 25 agencies, 3 had not posted their plans in time to be included in this testimony, and 1 reported no backlog. Of the remaining 21 agencies, 12 followed the Executive Order's instruction to establish measurable, outcome-oriented objectives for reducing or eliminating their backlogs, as well as timetables with milestones for meeting these objectives. Nine agencies did not do this, although they accounted for a substantial fraction--about 29 percent--of the requests reported to be pending at the end of fiscal year 2005. (Most agencies did provide goals and timetables for other kinds of objectives, however, such as performing staffing analyses and reviewing progress.) In addition, agencies generally did not specify the dates or numbers they were using as the baselines for their existing backlogs, which will be important for measuring improvement. GAO's ongoing work suggests that factors contributing to these deficiencies include difficulties in coordinating responses among components in large, decentralized agencies and limitations in the systems that track FOIA processing. In addition, neither the Executive Order nor Justice guidance established a baseline date for measuring the backlog or directed agencies to establish such a date. Without clearly defined baselines, specific objectives, and timetables for reducing backlog, it could be challenging for agency heads, Justice, and the Congress to gauge progress in improving FOIA processes as intended by the Executive Order.
GAO-06-1022T, Freedom of Information Act: Preliminary Analysis of Processing Trends Shows Importance of Improvement Plans
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1022T
entitled 'Freedom of Information Act: Preliminary Analysis of
Processing Trends Shows Importance of Improvement Plans' which was
released on July 26, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance,
and Accountability, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday, July 26, 2006:
Freedom Of Information Act:
Preliminary Analysis of Processing Trends Shows Importance of
Improvement Plans:
Statement of Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues:
GAO-06-1022T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1022T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Finance, and Accountability, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies
must provide the public with access to government information, thus
enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions. To
help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that agencies
report annually to the Attorney General, providing specific information
about their FOIA operations. In addition, a recent Executive Order
directs agencies to develop plans to improve their FOIA operations,
including, among other things, goals to reduce backlogs in FOIA
requests.
GAO has reported previously on the contents of these annual reports for
25 major agencies. For this hearing, GAO was asked to testify both on
the annual reports for fiscal year 2005 and on the recently developed
improvement plans for these 25 agencies. GAO based its testimony on its
ongoing work on these topics. Upon completion of its ongoing review,
GAO expects to make recommendations to improve agency implementation of
the Executive Order, including efforts to reduce and eliminate backlog.
What GAO Found:
According to data reported by agencies in their annual reports, the
public continues to request and receive increasing amounts of
information from the federal government through FOIA; however,
excepting one case”the Social Security Administration (SSA)”the rate of
increase has flattened in recent years. (SSA reported an additional 16
million requests in 2005, dwarfing those for all other agencies
combined, which together total about 2.6 million; SSA attributed this
rise to an improvement in its method of counting requests. However,
Justice officials have suggested that SSA consider treating the bulk of
these requests as non-FOIA requests and thus not include them in future
reports.) When SSA‘s numbers are excluded, data reported by the other
24 major agencies show that the number of requests received increased
by 27 percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2005, but by only about 2.5
percent from fiscal year 2004. As more requests come in, agencies also
report that they have been processing more of them”25 percent more from
2002 to 2005 (but only about 2.0 percent more than from 2004). Despite
processing more requests, agencies have not kept up with the increase
in requests being made: the number of pending requests carried over
from year to year has been steadily increasing, rising to about 200,000
in fiscal year 2005”43 percent more than in 2002. The rate of increase
in requests pending is also growing: the increase from fiscal year 2004
to 2005 is 24 percent, compared to 11 percent from 2003 to 2004.
Most of the agency improvement plans discussed reducing backlog, but
not all consistently followed the Executive Order or implementing
guidance provided by the Justice Department. Of the 25 agencies, 3 had
not posted their plans in time to be included in this testimony, and 1
reported no backlog. Of the remaining 21 agencies, 12 followed the
Executive Order‘s instruction to establish measurable, outcome-oriented
objectives for reducing or eliminating their backlogs, as well as
timetables with milestones for meeting these objectives. Nine agencies
did not do this, although they accounted for a substantial
fraction”about 29 percent”of the requests reported to be pending at the
end of fiscal year 2005. (Most agencies did provide goals and
timetables for other kinds of objectives, however, such as performing
staffing analyses and reviewing progress.) In addition, agencies
generally did not specify the dates or numbers they were using as the
baselines for their existing backlogs, which will be important for
measuring improvement. GAO‘s ongoing work suggests that factors
contributing to these deficiencies include difficulties in coordinating
responses among components in large, decentralized agencies and
limitations in the systems that track FOIA processing. In addition,
neither the Executive Order nor Justice guidance established a baseline
date for measuring the backlog or directed agencies to establish such a
date. Without clearly defined baselines, specific objectives, and
timetables for reducing backlog, it could be challenging for agency
heads, Justice, and the Congress to gauge progress in improving FOIA
processes as intended by the Executive Order.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1022T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee's
hearing on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).[Footnote 1] Generally speaking, FOIA establishes that federal
agencies must provide the public with access to government information,
thus enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions.
Specific requests by the public for information through the act have
led to disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the
government, as well as the identification of unsafe consumer products,
harmful drugs, and serious health hazards.
To help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that
agencies provide annual reports on their FOIA operations to the
Attorney General, including specific information such as how many
requests were received and processed in the previous fiscal year and
how many requests were pending at the end of the year. In addition, the
President issued an Executive Order[Footnote 2] in December 2005 that
is aimed at improving agencies' disclosure of information consistent
with FOIA. Among other things, this order requires each agency to
review its FOIA operations and develop improvement plans; by June 14,
2006, each agency was to submit a report to the Attorney General and
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that
summarizes the results of the agency's review and includes a copy of
its improvement plan. These plans are to include specific outcome-
oriented goals and timetables, by which the agency head is to evaluate
the agency's success in implementing the plan. The Executive Order
specifically requires that these plans address ways to eliminate or
reduce any backlog of FOIA requests.
As requested, in my remarks today, I will discuss two topics, basing my
discussion on ongoing work that we are performing for the Subcommittee:
(1) statistics on the processing of FOIA requests as reflected in
agencies' 2005 annual reports, highlighting any trends in these reports
since 2002, and (2) to what extent agencies addressed the Executive
Order's requirement to provide measurable, outcome-oriented goals to
reduce or eliminate backlog, along with timetables that include
milestones for these goals.
To describe statistics on the processing of FOIA requests, we analyzed
annual report data for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 from 25 major
agencies[Footnote 3] (herein we refer to this scope as governmentwide).
To describe how agency improvement plans addressed the order's
requirements regarding goals and timetables to address backlog, we
analyzed the 22 agencies' plans that were published as of June 30,
2006, to determine whether they contained descriptions of activities to
reduce backlog, along with goals and timetables that could be used to
evaluate progress.[Footnote 4] We also reviewed the Executive Order
itself, implementing guidance issued by OMB and the Department of
Justice, other FOIA guidance issued by Justice, and our past work in
this area. Three agencies, the Departments of State and Homeland
Security and the Agency for International Development, had not
published their plans by June 30, and thus we could not analyze them
for this hearing. These three agencies have since provided their plans.
We discussed the content of this statement with officials of the
Department of Justice, including the Director of the Office of
Information and Privacy.
We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards, except that we did not verify the
accuracy and reliability of the data in agencies' annual reports in
time to be included in this testimony. As a result, our findings on the
status of FOIA implementation as reflected in agencies' annual reports
are preliminary and may change when we complete our assessment of data
reliability. We performed our work from April to July 2006.
Results in Brief:
The public continues to request and receive increasing amounts of
information from the federal government through FOIA; however,
excepting one case--the Social Security Administration (SSA)--the rate
of increase has flattened in recent years.[Footnote 5] Based on data
reported by 24 major agencies in their annual FOIA reports, the number
of requests received in fiscal year 2005 increased by 27 percent from
2002, but by only about 2.5 percent from 2004. As more requests come
in, agencies also report that they have been processing more of them--
25 percent more from 2002 to 2005 (but only about 2.0 percent more than
from 2004). For 87 percent of requests processed in fiscal year 2005,
agencies reported that responsive records were provided in full to
requesters.However, the number of pending requests carried over from
year to year has been steadily increasing, rising 43 percent since
2002[Footnote 6]. Further, the rate of increase is growing: the
increase from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005 is 24 percent,
compared to 11 percent from 2003 to 2004. Finally, the median times to
process requests varied greatly across the government, ranging from
less than 10 days for some agency components to more than 100 days at
others (sometimes much more than 100).
Most of the agency improvement plans discussed reducing backlog, but
not all consistently followed the Executive Order or implementing
guidance provided by the Justice Department. Of the 25 agencies, 3 had
not posted their plans in time to be included in this testimony, and 1
reported no backlog. Of the remaining 21 agencies, 12 followed the
Executive Order's instruction to establish measurable, outcome-
oriented goals for reducing or eliminating their backlogs, as well as
timetables with milestones for achieving these goals. Nine agencies did
not do this, although they accounted for a substantial portion--about
29 percent--of the requests reported to be pending at the end of fiscal
year 2005. (Most agencies did provide goals and timetables for other
kinds of objectives, however, such as performing staffing analyses and
reviewing progress.) In addition, agencies generally did not specify
the dates or numbers they were using as the baselines for their
existing backlogs, which will be important for measuring improvement.
GAO's ongoing work suggests that factors contributing to these
deficiencies include difficulties in coordinating responses among
components in large, decentralized agencies and limitations in the
systems that track FOIA processing. In addition, neither the Executive
Order nor Justice guidance established a baseline date for measuring
the backlog or directed agencies to establish such a date. Without
clearly defined baselines, specific objectives, and timetables for
reducing backlog, it could be challenging for agency heads, Justice,
and the Congress to measure progress in improving FOIA processes, as
intended by the Executive Order.
When we complete our ongoing review and analysis of FOIA statistics and
agency improvement plans, we anticipate making recommendations to
improve agency implementation of the Executive Order, including efforts
to reduce and eliminate backlog.
Background:
FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and
information, on the basis of the principles of openness and
accountability in government. Before the act (originally enacted in
1966),[Footnote 7] an individual seeking access to federal records had
faced the burden of establishing a right to examine them. FOIA
established a "right to know" standard for access, instead of a "need
to know," and shifted the burden of proof from the individual to the
government agency seeking to deny access.
FOIA provides the public with access to government information either
through "affirmative agency disclosure"--publishing information in the
Federal Register or the Internet, or making it available in reading
rooms--or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public
requests for disclosure of records are the best known type of FOIA
disclosure. Any member of the public may request access to information
held by federal agencies, without showing a need or reason for seeking
the information.
Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act
prescribes nine specific categories of information that are exempt from
disclosure: for example, trade secrets and certain privileged
commercial or financial information, certain personnel and medical
files, and certain law enforcement records or information (attachment 1
provides the complete list). In denying access to material, agencies
may cite these exemptions. The act requires agencies to notify
requesters of the reasons for any adverse determination (that is, a
determination not to provide records) and grants requesters the right
to appeal agency decisions to deny access.
In addition, agencies are required to meet certain time frames for
making key determinations: whether to comply with requests (20 business
days from receipt of the request), responses to appeals of adverse
determinations (20 business days from filing of the appeal), and
whether to provide expedited processing of requests (10 business days
from receipt of the request). Congress did not establish a statutory
deadline for making releasable records available, but instead required
agencies to make them available promptly.
The FOIA Process at Federal Agencies:
Although the specific details of processes for handling FOIA requests
vary among agencies, the major steps in handling a request are similar
across the government. Agencies receive requests, usually in writing
(although they may accept requests by telephone or electronically),
which can come from any organization or member of the public. Once
received, the request goes through several phases, which include
initial processing, searching for and retrieving responsive records,
preparing responsive records for release, approving the release of the
records, and releasing the records to the requester. Figure 1 is an
overview of the process, from the receipt of a request to the release
of records.
Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of figure]
During the initial processing phase, a request is logged into the
agency's FOIA system, and a case file is started. The request is then
reviewed to determine its scope, estimate fees, and provide an initial
response to the requester (in general, this simply acknowledges receipt
of the request). After this point, the FOIA staff begins its search to
retrieve responsive records. This step may include searching for
records from multiple locations and program offices. After potentially
responsive records are located, the documents are reviewed to ensure
that they are within the scope of the request.
During the next two phases, the agency ensures that appropriate
information is to be released under the provisions of the act. First,
the agency reviews the responsive records to make any redactions based
on the statutory exemptions. Once the exemption review is complete, the
final set of responsive records is turned over to the FOIA office,
which calculates appropriate fees, if applicable. Before release, the
redacted responsive records are then given a final review, possibly by
the agency's general counsel, and then a response letter is generated,
summarizing the agency's actions regarding the request. Finally, the
responsive records are released to the requester.
Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for
specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the
appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive
processing, depending on their complexity, the volume of information
involved, the need for the agency FOIA office to work with offices that
have relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information,
the need for a FOIA officer to review and redact information in the
responsive material, the need to communicate with the requester about
the scope of the request, and the need to communicate with the
requester about the fees that will be charged for fulfilling the
request (or whether fees will be waived).[Footnote 8]
Specific details of agency processes for handling requests vary,
depending on the agency's organizational structure and the complexity
of the requests received. While some agencies centralize processing in
one main office, other agencies have separate FOIA offices for each
agency component and field office. Agencies also vary in how they allow
requests to be made. Depending on the agency, requesters can submit
requests by telephone, fax, letter, or e-mail or through the Web. In
addition, agencies may process requests in two ways, known as
"multitrack" and "single track." Multitrack processing involves
dividing requests into two groups: (1) simple requests requiring
relatively minimal review, which are placed in one processing track,
and (2) more voluminous and complex requests, which are placed in
another track. In contrast, single-track processing does not
distinguish between simple and complex requests. With single-track
processing, agencies process all requests on a first-in/first-out
basis. Agencies can also process FOIA requests on an expedited basis
when a requester has shown a compelling need or urgency for the
information.
As agencies process FOIA requests, they generally place them in one of
four possible disposition categories: grants, partial grants, denials,
and "not disclosed for other reasons." These categories are defined as
follows:
* Grants: Agency decisions to disclose all requested records in full.
* Partial grants: Agency decisions to withhold some records in whole or
in part, because such information was determined to fall within one or
more exemptions.
* Denials: Agency decisions not to release any part of the requested
records because all information in the records is determined to be
exempt under one or more statutory exemptions.
* Not disclosed for other reasons: Agency decisions not to release
requested information for any of a variety of reasons other than
statutory exemptions from disclosing records. The categories and
definitions of these "other" reasons for nondisclosure are shown in
table 1.
Table 1: "Other" Reasons for Nondisclosure:
Category: No records;
Definition: The agency searched and found no record responsive to the
request.
Category: Referrals;
Definition: The agency referred records responsive to the request to
another agency.
Category: Request withdrawn;
Definition: The requester withdrew the request.
Category: Fee-related reasons;
Definition: The requester refused to commit to pay fees (or other
reasons related to fees).
Category: Records not reasonably described;
Definition: The requester did not describe the records sought with
sufficient specifically to allow them to be located with a reasonable
amount of effort.
Category: Not a proper FOIA request;
Definition: The request was not a FOIA request for one of several
reasons.
Category: Not an agency record;
Definition: Duplicate request: The request was submitted more than once
by the same requester.
Source: Department of Justice.
[End of table]
When a FOIA request is denied in full or in part, or the requested
records are not disclosed for other reasons, the requester is entitled
to be told the reason for the denial, to appeal the denial, and to
challenge it in court.
The Privacy Act Also Provides Individuals with Access Rights:
In addition to FOIA, the Privacy Act of 1974[Footnote 9] includes
provisions granting individuals the right to gain access to and correct
information about themselves held by federal agencies. Thus the Privacy
Act serves as a second major legal basis, in addition to FOIA, for the
public to use in obtaining government information. The Privacy Act also
places limitations on agencies' collection, disclosure, and use of
personal information.
Although the two laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the
Privacy Act permit individuals to seek access to records about
themselves--known as "first-party" access. Depending on the individual
circumstances, one law may allow broader access or more extensive
procedural rights than the other, or access may be denied under one act
and allowed under the other. Consequently, the Department of Justice's
Office of Information and Privacy issued guidance that it is "good
policy for agencies to treat all first-party access requests as FOIA
requests (as well as possibly Privacy Act requests), regardless of
whether the FOIA is cited in a requester's letter." This guidance was
intended to help ensure that requesters receive the fullest possible
response to their inquiries, regardless of which law they cite.
In addition, Justice guidance for the annual FOIA report directs
agencies to include Privacy Act requests (that is, first-party
requests) in the statistics reported. According to the guidance, "A
Privacy Act request is a request for records concerning oneself; such
requests are also treated as FOIA requests. (All requests for access to
records, regardless of which law is cited by the requester, are
included in this report.)"
Although FOIA and the Privacy Act can both apply to first-party
requests, such requests are not in many cases processed in the same way
as described earlier for FOIA requests. For example, most SSA first-
party requests are processed by staff other than FOIA staff,
specifically, staff in SSA's field and district offices and teleservice
centers.[Footnote 10]
Roles of OMB and Justice in FOIA Implementation:
OMB and the Department of Justice both have roles in the implementation
of FOIA. The act requires OMB to issue guidelines to "provide for a
uniform schedule of fees for all agencies."[Footnote 11] OMB issued
this guidance in April 1987.[Footnote 12]
The Department of Justice oversees agencies' compliance with FOIA and
is the primary source of policy guidance for agencies. Specifically,
Justice's requirements under the act are to:
* make agencies' annual FOIA reports available through a single
electronic access point and notify Congress as to their availability;
* in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required annual
agency reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a
similar format; and:
* submit an annual report on FOIA statistics and the efforts undertaken
by Justice to encourage agency compliance.
Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy
has lead responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal
agencies on FOIA issues. This office first issued guidelines for agency
preparation and submission of annual reports in the spring of 1997. It
also periodically issues additional guidance on annual reports as well
as on compliance, provides training, and maintains a counselors service
to provide expert, one-on-one assistance to agency FOIA staff. Further,
the Office of Information and Privacy also makes a variety of FOIA and
Privacy Act resources available to agencies and the public via the
Justice Web site and on-line bulletins.
1996 Amendments Established Annual FOIA Reports:
In 1996, the Congress amended FOIA to provide for public access to
information in an electronic format (among other purposes). These
amendments, referred to as e-FOIA, also required that agencies submit a
report to the Attorney General on or before February 1 of each year
that covers the preceding fiscal year and includes information about
agencies' FOIA operations.[Footnote 13] The following are examples of
information that is to be included in these reports:
* number of requests received, processed, and pending;
* median number of days taken by the agency to process different types
of requests;
* determinations made by the agency not to disclose information and the
reasons for not disclosing the information;
* disposition of administrative appeals by requesters;
* information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA requests;
and:
* full-time-equivalent staffing information.
In addition to providing their annual reports to the Attorney General,
agencies are to make them available to the public in electronic form.
The Attorney General is required to make all agency reports available
on line at a single electronic access point and report to Congress no
later than April 1 of each year that these reports are available in
electronic form.
In 2001, we prepared the first in a series of reports on the
implementation of the 1996 amendments to FOIA, starting from fiscal
year 1999.[Footnote 14] In this and subsequent reviews, we examined the
contents of these annual reports for 25 major agencies (shown in table
2).[Footnote 15] They include the 24 major agencies covered by the
Chief Financial Officers Act, as well as the Central Intelligence
Agency and, until 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In 2003, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
which incorporated FEMA, led to a shift in some FOIA requests from
agencies affected by the creation of the new department, but the same
major component entities are reflected in all the years reviewed.
Table 2: Agencies Reviewed:
Agency: Agency for International Development;
Abbreviation: AID.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency;
Abbreviation: CIA.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Abbreviation: USDA.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Abbreviation: DOC.
Agency: Department of Defense;
Abbreviation: DOD.
Agency: Department of Education;
Abbreviation: ED.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Abbreviation: DOE.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Abbreviation: HHS.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security[ A];
Abbreviation: DHS.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management
Agency[A];
Abbreviation: FEMA.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
DOI.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Abbreviation: DOJ.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Abbreviation: DOL.
Agency: Department of State;
Abbreviation: State.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Abbreviation: Treas.
Department of Transportation;
Abbreviation: DOT.
Department of Veterans Affairs;
Abbreviation: VA.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Abbreviation: EPA.
Agency: General Services Administration;
Abbreviation: GSA.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Abbreviation: NASA.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Abbreviation: NSF.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Abbreviation: NRC.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Abbreviation: OPM.
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Abbreviation: SBA.
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Abbreviation: SSA.
Source: GAO.
[A] FEMA information was reported separately in fiscal year 2002. In
fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, FEMA was part of DHS.
[End of table]
Increases in Requests Are Slowing, but Pending Cases Are Increasing:
The annual FOIA reports for fiscal year 2005 show that many of the
trends of previous years are continuing: Requests received and
processed continue to rise; however, excepting one case--SSA--the rate
of increase has flattened in recent years. We present SSA's statistics
separately because the agency reported an additional 16 million
requests in 2005, dwarfing those for all other agencies combined, which
together total about 2.6 million. SSA attributed this rise to an
improvement in its method of counting requests. Justice officials have
raised questions about the inclusion of these numbers in FOIA
statistics.
Figure 2 shows total requests reported governmentwide for fiscal years
2002 through 2005, with SSA's share shown separately. This figure shows
the magnitude of SSA's contribution to the whole FOIA picture, as well
as the scale of the jump from 2004 to 2005.
Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal Years
2002-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[End of figure]
Figure 3 presents these statistics on a scale that allows a clearer
view of the rate of increase in FOIA requests received and processed in
the rest of the government. As this figure shows, when SSA's numbers
are excluded, the rate of increase is modest and has been flattening:
from fiscal year 2002 to 2005, requests received increased by about 27
percent, and requests processed increased by about 25 percent. From
fiscal year 2004 to 2005, requests received increased about 2.5
percent, and requests processed increased about 2.0 percent.
Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, Fiscal Years
2002-2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[End of Figure]
According to SSA, the increases that the agency reported in fiscal year
2005 can be attributed to an improvement in its method of counting a
category of requests it calls "simple requests handled by non-FOIA
staff." In the past 4 years, SSA's FOIA reports have consistently shown
significant growth in this category, which has accounted for the major
portion of all SSA requests reported (see table 3). In each of these
years, SSA has attributed the increases in this category largely to
better reporting, as well as actual increases in requests.
Table 3: Comparison of SSA's Simple Requests Handled by Non-FOIA Staff
to Totals, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005:
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total requests received: 17,257,886;
Total requests processed: 17,262,315;
Simple requests handled by non- FOIA staff: 17,223,713;
Percentage of total processed: 99.8.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total requests received: 1,453,619;
Total requests processed: 1,450,493;
Simple requests handled by non- FOIA staff: 1,270,512;
Percentage of total processed: 87.6.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total requests received: 705,280;
Total requests processed: 704,941;
Simple requests handled by non- FOIA staff: 678,849;
Percentage of total processed: 96.3.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total requests received: 268,488;
Total requests processed: 292,884;
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 245,877;
Percentage of total processed: 84.0.
Sources: SSA FOIA reports (self-reported data), GAO analysis.
[End of table]
SSA describes requests in this category as typically being requests by
individuals for access to their own records, or else requests in which
individuals consent for SSA to supply information about themselves to
third parties (such as insurance and mortgage companies) so that they
can receive housing assistance, mortgages, disability insurance, and so
on.[Footnote 16] According to SSA's FOIA report, these requests are
handled by personnel in about 1,500 locations in SSA, including field
and district offices and teleservice centers. Such requests are almost
always granted,[Footnote 17] according to SSA, and most receive
immediate responses. SSA has stated that it does not keep processing
statistics (such as median days to process) on these requests, which it
reports separately from other FOIA requests (for which processing
statistics are kept).
According to SSA, in fiscal year 2005, the agency began to use
automated systems to capture the numbers of requests processed by non-
FOIA staff, generating statistics automatically as requests were
processed; the result, according to SSA, is a much more accurate count.
However, Justice officials have suggested that SSA consider treating
the bulk of these requests as non-FOIA requests and thus not include
them in future reports.
Besides SSA, agencies reporting large numbers of requests received were
the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as
shown in table 4. The rest of the agencies combined account for only
about 3 percent of the total requests received (if SSA is excluded).
Table 4 presents, in descending order of request totals, the numbers of
requests received and percentages of the total (calculated with and
without SSA's statistics).
Table 4: Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2005:
Agency: SSA;
Total: 17,257,886;
Percentage of total including SSA: 86.78;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: --.
Agency: VA;
Total: 1,914,395;
Percentage of total including SSA: 9.63;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 72.81.
Agency: HHS:
Total: 222,372;
Percentage of total including SSA: 1.12;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 8.46.
Agency: DHS;
Total: 163,016;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.82;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 6.20.
Agency: DOD;
Total: 81,304;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.41;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 3.09.
Agency: Treas;
Total: 53,330;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.27;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 2.03.
Agency: DOJ;
Total: 52,010;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.26;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 1.98.
Agency: USDA;
Total: 51,516;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.26;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 1.96.
Agency: DOL;
Total: 23,505;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.12;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.89.
Agency: EPA;
Total: 12,201;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.06;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.46.
Agency: OPM;
Total: 12,085;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.06;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.46.
Agency: DOT;
Total: 9,597;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.05;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.37.
Agency: DOI;
Total: 6,749;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.03;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.26.
Agency: State;
Total: 4,602;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.02;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.18.
Agency: HUD;
Total: 4,227;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.02;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.16.
Agency: SBA;
Total: 3,739;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.02;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.14.
Agency: DOE;
Total: 3,729;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.02;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.14.
Agency: CIA;
Total: 2,935;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.01;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.11.
Agency: ED;
Total: 2,416;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.01;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.09.
Agency: DOC;
Total: 1,804;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.01;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.07.
Agency: GSA;
Total: 1,416;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.01;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.05.
Agency: NASA;
Total: 1,229;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.01;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.05.
Agency: NRC;
Total: 371;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.00;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.01.
Agency: AID;
Total: 369;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.00;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.01.
Agency: NSF;
Total: 273;
Percentage of total including SSA: 0.00;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: 0.01.
Agency: Total excluding SSA;
Total: 2,629,190;
Percentage of total including SSA: --;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: --.
Agency: Total including SSA;
Total: 19,887,076;
Percentage of total including SSA: --;
Percentage of total excluding SSA: --.
Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).
Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2.
[End of table]
Most Requests Are Granted in Full:
Most FOIA requests in 2005 were granted in full, with relatively few
being partially granted, denied, or not disclosed for other reasons
(statistics are shown in table 5). This generalization holds with or
without SSA's inclusion. However, including SSA's numbers in the
proportion of grants overwhelms the other categories--raising this
number from 87 percent of the total to 98 percent. This is to be
expected, since SSA reports that it grants the great majority of its
simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff, which make up the bulk of
SSA's statistics.
Table 5: Disposition of Processed Requests for Fiscal Year 2005:
Disposition: Full grants;
Statistics excluding SSA: Number: 2,252,867;
Statistics excluding SSA: Percentage: 87.2;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 19,513,259;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 98.3.
Disposition: Partial grants;
Statistics excluding SSA: Number: 104,356;
Statistics excluding SSA: Percentage: 4.0;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 104,631;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 0.5.
Disposition: Denial;
Statistics excluding SSA: Number: 20,949;
Statistics excluding SSA: Percentage: 0.8;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 21,403;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 0.1.
Disposition: Not disclosed for other reasons;
Statistics excluding SSA: Number: 206,669;
Statistics excluding SSA: Percentage: 8.0;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 207,893;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 1.1.
Disposition: Total;
Statistics excluding SSA: Number: 2,584,871;
Statistics excluding SSA: Percentage: --;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 19,847,186;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: --.
Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).
[End of table]
Four of the eight agencies that handled the largest numbers of requests
(HHS, SSA, USDA, and VA; see table 4) also granted the largest
percentages of requests in full, as shown in figure 4. This figure
shows, by agency, the disposition of requests processed: that is,
whether granted in full, partially granted, denied, or not disclosed
for the "other" reasons shown in table 1.
Figure 4: Disposition of Processed Requests, by Agency (Fiscal Year
2005):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 2005 (self-
reported data).
Note: Abbreviations are shown in table 2.
[End of Figure]
As the figure shows, the numbers of fully granted requests varied
widely among agencies in fiscal year 2005. Seven agencies made full
grants of requested records in over 80 percent of the cases they
processed (besides the four already mentioned, these include DOE, OPM,
and SBA). In contrast, 13 of 25 made full grants of requested records
in less than 40 percent of their cases, including 3 agencies (CIA, NSF,
and State) that made full grants in less than 20 percent of cases
processed.
This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has been
evident in prior years as well.[Footnote 18] In many cases, the
variance can be accounted for by the types of requests that different
agencies process. For example, as discussed earlier, SSA grants a very
high proportion of requests because they are requests for personal
information about individuals that are routinely made available to or
for the individuals concerned. Similarly, VA routinely makes medical
records available to individual veterans.
Processing Times Vary:
For 2005, the reported time required to process requests (by track)
varied considerably among agencies. Table 6 presents data on median
processing times for fiscal year 2005. For agencies that reported
processing times by component rather than for the agency as a whole,
the table indicates the range of median times reported by the agency's
components.
Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2005, by
Track:
Agency: AID;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 55;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 34.
Agency: CIA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 7;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 68;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: DHS;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 16-61
Type of request processing track: Complex: 3-242;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-45.
Agency: DOC;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 12;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 20;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 8.
Agency: DOD;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 16;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 85;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: DOE;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 5-106;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 10-170;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-12.
Agency: DOI;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 2-43;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 28-89;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-15.
Agency: DOJ;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 0-139;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 12-863;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-185.
Agency: DOL;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 6-30;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 14-60;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-18.
Agency: DOT;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 1-30;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 14-60;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-18.
Agency: ED;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 35;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 66;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 24.
Agency: EPA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 13-32;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 4-166;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 8-109.
Agency: GSA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 14;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: HHS;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 10-26;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 60-370;
Type of request processing track: Single: 5-173;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 14-158.
Agency: HUD;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 21-65;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 35-160;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 9-70.
Agency: NASA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 19;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 49;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 15.
Agency: NRC;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 12;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 75;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 20.
Agency: NSF;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 14;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: OPM;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 14;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1.
Agency: SBA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 7;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: SSA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 15;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 39;
Type of request processing track: Single: 10;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 17.
Agency: State;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 14;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 142;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 136.
Agency: Treas;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 2-86;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 3-251;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1.
Agency: USDA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: 2-90;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 10-1277;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-40.
Agency: VA;
Type of Request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 1-60;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-10.
Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2005 (self- reported
data).
Note: For agencies that reported processing times by component, the
table indicates the range of reported component median times. A dash
indicates that the agency did not report any median time for a given
track in a given year.
[End of table]
As the table shows, eight agencies had components that reported
processing simple requests in less than 10 days (these components are
part of the CIA, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation,
the Treasury, and USDA); for each of these agencies, the lower value of
the reported ranges is less than 10. On the other hand, median time to
process simple requests is relatively long at some organizations (for
example, components of HHS, Justice, and USDA, as shown by median
ranges whose upper end values are greater than 100 days).
For complex requests, the picture is similarly mixed. Components of
four agencies (EPA, DHS, the Treasury, and VA) reported processing
complex requests quickly--with a median of less than 10 days. In
contrast, other components of several agencies (DHS, Energy, EPA, HHS,
HUD, Justice, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and USDA) reported
relatively long median times to process complex requests, with median
days greater than 100.
Six agencies (AID, HHS, NSF, OPM, SBA, and SSA) reported using single-
track processing. The median processing times for single-track
processing varied from 5 days (at an HHS component) to 173 days (at
another HHS component).
The changes from fiscal year 2004 to 2005 also vary. For agencies that
reported agencywide figures, table 7 shows how many showed increased or
decreased median processing times. Table 8 shows these numbers for the
components that were reported separately.
Table 7: Changes in Median Processing Times Reported by Agencies for
Different Processing Tracks:
Processing Track: Simple;
Number of agencies using this track: 7;
Agencies with increased median times: Number: 3;
Agencies with increased median times: Percentage: 42.9;
Agencies with decreased median times: Number: 3;
Agencies with decreased median times: Percentage: 42.9;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Number: 1;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Percentage: 14.3.
Processing Track: Complex;
Number of agencies using this track: 8;
Agencies with increased median times: Number: 5;
Agencies with increased median times: Percentage: 62.5;
Agencies with decreased median times: Number: 2;
Agencies with decreased median times: Percentage: 25.0;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Number: 1;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Percentage: 12.58.
Processing Track: Single;
Number of agencies using this track: 5;
Agencies with increased median times: Number: 3;
Agencies with increased median times: Percentage: 60.0;
Agencies with decreased median times: Number: 2;
Agencies with decreased median times: Percentage: 40.0;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Number: 0;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Percentage: 0.0.
Processing Track: Expedited;
Number of agencies using this track: 5;
Agencies with increased median times: Number: 2;
Agencies with increased median times: Percentage: 40.0;
Agencies with decreased median times: Number: 3;
Agencies with decreased median times: Percentage: 60.0;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Number: 0;
Agencies with unchanged median times: Percentage: 0.0.
Sources: Annual FOIA reports, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Table 8: Changes in Median Processing Times Reported by Components for
Different Processing Tracks:
Processing track: Simple;
Number of components using this track: 122;
Components with increased median times: Number: 57;
Components with increased median times: Percentage: 46.7;
Components with decreased median times: Number: 46;
Components with decreased median times: Percentage: 37.7;
Components with unchanged median times: Number: 19;
Components with unchanged median times: Percentage: 15.6.
Processing track: Complex;
Number of components using this track: 105;
Components with increased median times: Number: 52;
Components with increased median times: Percentage: 46.7;
Components with decreased median times: Number: 44;
Components with decreased median times: Percentage: 41.9;
Components with unchanged median times: Number: 9;
Components with unchanged median times: Percentage: 8.6.
Processing track: Single;
Number of components using this track: 9;
Components with increased median times: Number: 3;
Components with increased median times: Percentage: 33.3;
Components with decreased median times: Number: 2;
Components with decreased median times: Percentage: 22.2;
Components with unchanged median times: Number: 4;
Components with unchanged median times: Percentage: 44.4.
Processing track: Expedited;
Number of components using this track: 43;
Components with increased median times: Number: 25;
Components with increased median times: Percentage: 58.1;
Components with decreased median times: Number: 13;
Components with decreased median times: Percentage: 30.2;
Components with unchanged median times: Number: 5;
Components with unchanged median times: Percentage: 11.6.
Sources: Annual FOIA reports, GAO analysis.
Note: A total of 204 components are listed in the FOIA reports. Not all
the components processed requests or used all the tracks.
[End of table]
These tables show that no one pattern emerges across tracks and types
of reporting, and the numbers of agencies and components involved vary
from track to track. The picture that emerges is of great variation
according to circumstances.
To allow more insight into the variations in median processing times,
we provide in attachment 2 tables of median processing times as
reported by agencies and components in the annual FOIA reports in
fiscal years 2004 and 2005. This attachment also includes information
on the number of requests reported by the agencies and components,
which provides context for assessing the median times reported.
Agency Pending Cases Continue to Increase:
In addition to processing greater numbers of requests, many agencies
(11 of 25) also reported that their numbers of pending cases--requests
carried over from one year to the next--have increased since 2002. In
2002, pending requests governmentwide were reported to number about
140,000, whereas in 2005, about 200,000--43 percent more--were
reported. In addition, the rate of increase grew in fiscal year 2005,
rising 24 percent from fiscal year 2004, compared to 11 percent from
2003 to 2004. Figure 5 shows these results, illustrating the
accelerating rate at which pending cases have been increasing.
These statistics include pending cases reported by SSA, because as the
figure shows, these pending cases do not change the governmentwide
picture significantly. As previously discussed, SSA's pending cases do
not include simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff, for which SSA
does not keep these statistics.
Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[End of figure]
Trends for individual agencies show mixed progress in reducing the
number of pending requests reported from 2002 to 2005--some agencies
have decreased numbers of pending cases, while others' numbers have
increased. Figure 6 shows processing rates at the 25 agencies (that is,
the number of requests that an agency processes relative to the number
it receives). Eight of the 25 agencies (AID, DHS, the Interior,
Education, HHS, HUD, NSF, and OPM) reported processing fewer requests
than they received each year for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005; 8
additional agencies processed less than they received in two of these
three years.
In contrast, two agencies (CIA and DOE) had processing rates above 100
percent in all three years, meaning that each made continued progress
in reducing their numbers of pending cases. Fifteen additional agencies
were able to make at least a small reduction in their numbers of
pending requests in 1 or more years between fiscal years 2003 and 2005.
Figure 6: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
Notes: Abbreviations are as in table 2.
The agency processing rate is defined as the number of requests
processed in a given year compared with the requests received,
expressed as a percentage.
In 2002, FEMA data were used, and for 2003, 2004, and 2005, DHS data
were used.
[End of Figure]
About Half of FOIA Improvement Plans Do Not Include Goals and
Timetables for Reducing the Backlog:
The Executive Order, with its requirement for agencies to develop FOIA
improvement plans, serves to focus agency managers' attention on the
important role that FOIA plays in keeping citizens well informed about
the operations of their government. By requiring measurable goals and
timetables, the Executive Order provides for a results-oriented
framework by which agency heads can hold officials accountable for
improvements in FOIA processing. Further, the Department of Justice's
guidance on implementing the order provides several tangible
suggestions for improving FOIA operations.
The Executive Order states that each agency shall develop an
improvement plan by June 14, 2006, that includes measurable, outcome-
oriented goals to reduce or eliminate backlog,[Footnote 19] along with
timetables that include milestones for these goals. According to this
guidance, the goals and milestones in agency plans should focus on
outcomes that are measurable and demonstrate whether or not intended
results are being achieved.[Footnote 20] Justice's implementation
guidance directs agencies to include "means of measurement of success
(e.g., quantitative assessment of backlog reduction expressed in
numbers of pending requests, percentages, or working days)" and
provides agencies considerable leeway in choosing measures of
timeliness.[Footnote 21]
Most of the 22 agency plans available as of June 30 discussed reducing
backlog, but not all consistently followed the Executive Order
directions by establishing goals and timetables for reducing or
eliminating their backlog. In all, 12 of the 21 agencies that reported
a backlog included such goals and timetables, but the remaining 9 did
not do so. (The Small Business Administration did not report a
backlog.) These 9 agencies accounted for about 29 percent of the almost
200,000 requests pending at the end of fiscal year 2005 that were
reported in the annual FOIA reports.
Table 9 summarizes the results of our analysis.
Table 9: Inclusion in Agency FOIA Improvement Plans of Both Outcomes
and Associated Milestones for Reducing Backlog:
Agency: AID;
Outcome-oriented goals: --;
Milestones related goals: --;
Comment: Plan not provided in time for analysis.
Agency: CIA;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: DHS;
Outcome-oriented goals: --;
Milestones related goals: --;
Comment: Plan not provided in time for analysis.
Agency: DOC;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: NO;
Comment: Process goals and timetable only.
Agency: DOD;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Process goals and timetable only.
Agency: DOE;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: DOI;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: DOJ;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: DOL;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Process goals and timetable only.
Agency: DOT;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: ED;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: EPA;
Outcome-oriented goals:Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: GSA;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Backlog reduction not part of improvement plan.
Agency: HHS;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: HUD;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: NASA;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Backlog reduction not part of improvement plan.
Agency: NRC;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: NSF;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Process goals and timetable only.
Agency: OPM;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: SBA;
Outcome-oriented goals: --;
Milestones related goals: --;
Comment: No backlog.
Agency: SSA;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Timetable did not include milestones for outcome, only for
processes.
Agency: State;
Outcome-oriented goals: --;
Milestones related goals: --;
Comment: Plan not provided in time for analysis.
Agency: Treas;
Outcome-oriented goals: Yes;
Milestones related goals: Yes;
Comment: --.
Agency: USDA;
Outcome-oriented goals: No[A];
Milestones related goals: No[A];
Comment: --.
Agency: VA;
Outcome-oriented goals: No;
Milestones related goals: No;
Comment: Process goals and timetable only.
Total: Yes;
Outcome-oriented goals: 13;
Milestones related to goals: 12.
Source: GAO analysis of agency FOIA improvement plans.
[A] USDA provided objectives and timetables by component. Only the
Office of Inspector General included outcomes and timetables.
[End of table]
As table 9 shows, 13 agencies included goals, but 1 of these (SSA) did
not include a timetable associated with its goal.
The goals chosen by the 13 agencies varied. For example, OPM's plan set
a goal of reducing and eliminating the agency's backlog by December 31,
2006. EPA's goal was to reduce its response backlog to less than 10
percent of the number of new FOIA requests received each year. Several
agencies set goals to reduce backlog to various percentages of their
current backlog (for example, the CIA, Energy, the Interior, Justice,
and the Treasury). HUD set an absolute goal of fewer than 400 pending
requests.
Although the remaining 8 agency plans discussed efforts to improve FOIA
processing, they did not contain goals for backlog reduction. In two
cases (GSA and NASA), agencies did not include such goals because they
did not include backlog reduction among the areas of improvement on
which they planned to focus. These agencies did not consider their
backlogs significant; nonetheless, the Executive Order specifically
instructed agencies to include goals and timetables to address backlog.
In other cases, agencies did address backlog reduction but did not
define goals. Many of these agencies did define process goals, such as
establishing means to monitor and report on backlog, reviewing current
processes, and identifying and reviewing tracking systems, but these
were not accompanied by goals for backlog reduction:
* For example, the Department of Commerce's plan stated that, to the
extent possible, its components would use current backlog numbers as a
ceiling (these generally range from 9 to 13 percent of the workload)
and work aggressively to reduce these numbers, focusing particularly on
the 10 oldest requests in each component's backlog. However, although
the plan provided milestone dates for FOIA officers to review progress
in this area and assess any need to pursue alternatives (such as
contract support) for achieving goals, the plan did not provide
measurable targets for assessing success, such as percentage of
reduction.
* Similarly, the Department of Defense set various process goals
(identifying those FOIA Offices with backlogs greater than 50 cases,
determining the staffing levels required to significantly reduce the
backlog, and seeking the necessary funding to provide this additional
staffing). However, it provided no measurable targets for reducing
backlog.
In the timetables that agencies provided in their plans, 12 agencies
provided milestones for goals that they had identified. As mentioned
earlier, one agency (SSA) did not include a milestone for its goal of
eliminating backlog. SSA provided instead a timetable that addressed
process goals: reorganizing its Office of Public Disclosure and
developing a new information system. Like SSA, several agencies
provided timetables for various activities that they included in their
plans to reduce backlog, but these did not include milestones for
outcome-oriented goals (for example, Defense provided milestones for
the process goals described above).
In addition to setting goals and milestones for those goals, in order
to demonstrate that goals are achieved, plans should also include
baselines against which results can be measured. In the case of
backlog, these numbers can differ from day to day, so specifying a
baseline is crucial. Baselines can be defined on the basis of a date
from which an agency intends to measure, the number it is using as its
baseline, or both. Publicly available baselines are important to
promote accountability as well as the transparency of government
processes.
However, most of the agency improvement plans do not clearly define
baselines for their existing backlogs. An exception was OPM: in
describing its goal to eliminate backlog by December 31, 2006, it
specified its present backlog as 107 requests. Similarly, the
Department of Education referred to measuring its success in terms of
having fewer open cases at the end of each year, based on a backlog
that it specified as 480 as of June 2, 2006. In other cases, agencies
did not specify whether they planned to measure from the date of their
plans, from the end of fiscal year 2005, or from some other baseline.
Some agencies did, however, describe plans to perform analyses that
would measure their backlogs so that they could then establish the
necessary baselines.
Our ongoing work suggests that factors contributing to these
deficiencies included difficulties in coordinating responses among
components in large decentralized agencies and limitations in the way
that agency systems track FOIA processing. In addition, neither the
Executive Order nor Justice guidance established a baseline date for
measuring the backlog or directed agencies to establish such a
baseline. Uncertainty regarding defined baselines could hinder the
measurement of progress in reducing backlog. Without clearly defined
baselines, specific objectives, and timetables for reducing backlog,
the risk is that agency heads, Justice, the Congress, and the public
could be hampered in determining whether and how well agencies have
achieved the Executive Order's aims of improving FOIA processing and
agency disclosure of information.
When we complete our ongoing review and analysis, we expect to make
recommendations aimed at improving agency implementation of the
Executive Order, including efforts to reduce and eliminate backlog.
In summary, FOIA continues to be a valuable tool for citizens to obtain
information about the operation and decisions of the federal
government. Since 2002, agencies have received increasing numbers of
requests and have also continued to increase the number of requests
that they process. In addition, agencies continue to grant most
requests in full. However, the rate of increase in pending requests is
accelerating.
Given these continuing trends, the President's Executive Order creates,
among other things, a renewed, results-oriented emphasis on improving
request processing and reducing the backlog of pending requests.
However, our ongoing work suggests that agencies are not yet fully
complying with the order's requirements for measurable, outcome-
oriented goals and associated timetables. In addition, agencies have
not all established clear baselines for their existing backlogs.
Without a baseline measurement and tangible steps for addressing the
accumulation of pending cases, the heads of these agencies may be
limited in their ability to measure and evaluate success in
implementing their plans as the President's order requires.
Accordingly, in moving forward, it will be important for Justice and
the agencies to continue to refine these plans so that the goal of
reducing backlogs can be fully realized and the federal government can
remain responsive to citizen needs. When we complete our ongoing work,
we expect to provide recommendations to help move this process forward.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgements:
If you should have questions about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or via e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Other major
contributors included Barbara Collier, Vernetta Marquis, Alan
Stapleton, Shawn Ward, and Elizabeth Zhao.
Attachment 1: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions:
The act prescribes nine specific categories of information that is
exempt from disclosure:
Exemption Number: (1);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: (A) Specifically authorized under
criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact
properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
Exemption Number: (2);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Related solely to the internal
personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption Number: (3);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Specifically exempted from
disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided
that such statute (A) requires that matters be withheld from the public
in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B)
establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular
types of matters to be withheld.
Exemption Number: (4);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Trade secrets and commercial or
financial information obtained from a person and privileged or
confidential.
Exemption Number: (5);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Inter-agency or intra-agency
memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party
other than an agency in litigation with the agency.
Exemption Number: (6);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Personnel and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Exemption Number: (7);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of
such law enforcement records or information:
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings:
(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial
adjudication:
(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy:
(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a
confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or
authority or any private institution which furnished information on a
confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information
compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a
criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national
security intelligence investigation, information furnished by
confidential source:
(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or:
(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical
safety of an individual;
Exemption Number: (8);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Contained in or related to
examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of,
or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation of
supervision of financial institutions.
Exemption Number: (9);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Geological and geophysical
information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
Source: 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) through (b)(9).
[End of table]
Attachment 2. Median Processing Times Reported:
The attached tables present median processing times as reported by
agencies in their annual FOIA reports in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. To
provide context, we include numbers of requests processed for each
agency or component. We also indicate (in columns headed "±") whether
the median days to process rose (+), fell (-), or remained unchanged
(=). (We also use "~" to indicate other types of changes, such as the
establishment of a new component.)
Agencies report median processing times according to processing tracks:
that is, some agencies divide requests into simple and complex
categories and process these in separate tracks, whereas others use a
single track. Accordingly, the tables show these tracks where
applicable. In addition, agencies are required to subject some requests
to expedited processing, and these are reported as a separate track.
Tables for the agencies are presented in the following order, which
corresponds to the order generally used in the figures and tables
provided in the statement:
AID;
Agency for International Development.
CIA;
Central Intelligence Agency.
DHS;
Department of Homeland Security.
DOC;
Department of Commerce.
DOD;
Department of Defense.
DOE;
Department of Energy.
DOI;
Department of the Interior.
DOJ;
Department of Justice.
DOL;
Department of Labor.
DOT;
Department of Transportation.
ED;
Department of Education.
EPA;
Environmental Protection Agency.
GSA;
General Services Administration.
HHS;
Department of Health and Human Services.
HUD;
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
NASA;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NRC;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NSF;
National Science Foundation.
OPM;
Office of Personnel Management.
SBA;
Small Business Administration.
SSA;
Social Security Administration.
State;
Department of State.
Treas;
Department of the Treasury.
USDA;
Department of Agriculture.
VA;
Department of Veterans Affairs.
[End of table]
Agency for International Development:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: AID;
Single: No.: 2004: 209;
Single: No.: 2005: 196;
Single: Days: 2004: 54;
Single: Days: 2005: 55;
Single: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 3;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 13;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 34;
Expedited: ±: +.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Central Intelligence Agency:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: CIA;
Simple: No.: 2004: 501;
Simple: No.: 2005: 577;
Simple: Days: 2004: 7;
Simple: Days: 2005: 7;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 2,834;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2,533;
Complex: Days: 2004: 63;
Complex: Days: 2005: 68;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 10;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: Office of the Secretary/Privacy Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 279;
Simple: No.: 2005: 604;
Simple: Days: 2004: 19;
Simple: Days: 2005: 16;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 98;
Complex: No.: 2005: 134;
Complex: Days: 2004: 66;
Complex: Days: 2005: 102;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 48;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 9;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 11;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Office of the Inspector General;
Simple: No.: 2004: n/a;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 21;
Complex: No.: 2005: 14;
Complex: Days: 2004: 44;
Complex: Days: 2005: 91;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 3;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 5;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of the General Counsel;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: (a);
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: 1;
Complex: Days: 2004: (a);
Complex: Days: 2005: 222;
Complex: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: ~.
Component: Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection;
Simple: No.: 2004: n/a;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: n/a;
Complex: No.: 2005: 51;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 30;
Complex: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Emergency Preparedness and Response;
Simple: No.: 2004: 101;
Simple: No.: 2005: 186;
Simple: Days: 2004: 14;
Simple: Days: 2005: 61;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 128;
Complex: No.: 2005: 345;
Complex: Days: 2004: 48;
Complex: Days: 2005: 178;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 28;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 14;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 9;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 45;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Science and Technology;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: 1;
Simple: Days: 2004: (a);
Simple: Days: 2005: 30;
Simple: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: 1;
Complex: Days: 2004: (a);
Complex: Days: 2005: 210;
Complex: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: ~.
Component: U.S. Coast Guard;
Simple: No.: 2004: 6,735;
Simple: No.: 2005: 6,035;
Simple: Days: 2004: 13;
Simple: Days: 2005: 16;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 638;
Complex: No.: 2005: 608;
Complex: Days: 2004: 21;
Complex: Days: 2005: 21;
Complex: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 30;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 11;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 11;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 2;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: U.S. Secret Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 912;
Complex: No.: 2005: 701;
Complex: Days: 2004: 111;
Complex: Days: 2005: 149;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
Simple: No.: 2004: 105,567;
Simple: No.: 2005: 85,307;
Simple: Days: 2004: 16;
Simple: Days: 2005: 45;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 27,850;
Complex: No.: 2005: 19,532;
Complex: Days: 2004: 31;
Complex: Days: 2005: 55;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 580;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 95;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 8;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 15;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: US-VISIT;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: 14;
Simple: Days: 2004: (a);
Simple: Days: 2005: 17;
Simple: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: 1;
Complex: Days: 2004: (a);
Complex: Days: 2005: 60;
Complex: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: ~.
Component: Border and Transportation Security: CBP;
Simple: No.: 2004: 2,317;
Simple: No.: 2005: 3,174;
Simple: Days: 2004: 20;
Simple: Days: 2005: 17;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,986;
Complex: No.: 2005: 3,815;
Complex: Days: 2004: 30;
Complex: Days: 2005: 12;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 4;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 890;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 3;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 17;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Border and Transportation Security: TSA;
Simple: No.: 2004: 828;
Simple: No.: 2005: 11;
Simple: Days: 2004: 8;
Simple: Days: 2005: 16;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,307;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1,199;
Complex: Days: 2004: 29;
Complex: Days: 2005: 13;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 2;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 2;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 45;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 28;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Border and Transportation Security: ICE;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,124;
Simple: No.: 2005: 661;
Simple: Days: 2004: 84;
Simple: Days: 2005: 35;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: n/a;
Complex: No.: 2005: 881;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 242;
Complex: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Border and Transportation Security: FLETC;
Simple: No.: 2004: n/a;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,451;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1,834;
Complex: Days: 2004: 5;
Complex: Days: 2005: 3;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[A] Component did not exist.
[End of table]
Department of Commerce:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: Commerce;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,564;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,321;
Simple: Days: 2004: 13;
Simple: Days: 2005: 2;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 465;
Complex: No.: 2005: 511;
Complex: Days: 2004: 41;
Complex: Days: 2005: 40;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 6;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 2;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 8;
Expedited: ±: +.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Defense:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: Defense;
Simple: No.: 2004: 63,443;
Simple: No.: 2005: 66,979;
Simple: ±: -;
Simple: Days: 2004: 17;
Simple: Days: 2005: 16;
Simple: Days: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 12,972;
Complex: No.: 2005: 11,385;
Complex: Days: 2004: 59;
Complex: Days: 2005: 85;
Complex: Days: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 841;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 411;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: ±: -.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Energy:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center
Albuquerque;
Simple: No.: 2004: 118;
Simple: No.: 2005: 76;
Simple: Days: 2004: 30;
Simple: Days: 2005: 15;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 99;
Complex: No.: 2005: 108;
Complex: Days: 2004: 58;
Complex: Days: 2005: 170;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bonneville Power Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 54;
Simple: No.: 2005: 54;
Simple: Days: 2004: 12;
Simple: Days: 2005: 20;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Carlsbad Field Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 654;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 20;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 10;
Complex: No.: 2005: 14;
Complex: Days: 2004: 35;
Complex: Days: 2005: 57;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Chicago Operations Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 36;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 21;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 38;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 21;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Golden Field Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 21;
Simple: No.: 2005: 11;
Simple: Days: 2004: 14;
Simple: Days: 2005: 33;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 2;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1;
Complex: Days: 2004: 20.5;
Complex: Days: 2005: 66;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Idaho Operations Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 45;
Simple: No.: 2005: 46;
Simple: Days: 2004: 11;
Simple: Days: 2005: 13;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 34;
Complex: No.: 2005: 34;
Complex: Days: 2004: 41;
Complex: Days: 2005: 36;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: National Energy Technology Operations;
Simple: No.: 2004: 9;
Simple: No.: 2005: 7;
Simple: Days: 2004: 20;
Simple: Days: 2005: 10;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 9;
Complex: No.: 2005: 26;
Complex: Days: 2004: 25;
Complex: Days: 2005: 30;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of Naval Reactors;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: 7;
Simple: Days: 2004: (a);
Simple: Days: 2005: 10;
Simple: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: (a);
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: ~.
Component: Oak Ridge Operations Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,012;
Simple: No.: 2005: 971;
Simple: Days: 2004: 158;
Simple: Days: 2005: 31;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 139;
Complex: No.: 2005: 42;
Complex: Days: 2004: 257;
Complex: Days: 2005: 112;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 30;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 14;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 7;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 12;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Ohio Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center;
Simple: No.: 2004: 89;
Simple: No.: 2005: 156;
Simple: Days: 2004: 152;
Simple: Days: 2005: 28;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 10;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: ~.
Component: Office of Repository Development;
Simple: No.: 2004: 42;
Simple: No.: 2005: 71;
Simple: Days: 2004: 15;
Simple: Days: 2005: 19;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 29;
Complex: No.: 2005: 13;
Complex: Days: 2004: 60;
Complex: Days: 2005: 73;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 0;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Richland Operations Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 190;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 31;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 115;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 18;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Rocky Flats Environmental Management Consolidated Business
Center;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 794;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 106;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 16;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 916;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Savannah River Operations Office;
Simple: No.: 2004: 65;
Simple: No.: 2005: 40;
Simple: Days: 2004: 61;
Simple: Days: 2005: 73;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of Scientific and Technical Information;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1;
Simple: No.: 2005: 3;
Simple: Days: 2004: 1;
Simple: Days: 2005: 10;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Southeastern Power Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 3;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: 10;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: ]Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Southwestern Power Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 5;
Simple: No.: 2005: 4;
Simple: Days: 2004: 10;
Simple: Days: 2005: 5;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
Simple: No.: 2004: 13;
Simple: No.: 2005: 13;
Simple: Days: 2004: 10;
Simple: Days: 2005: 21;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 82;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 4;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Western Area Power Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 35;
Simple: No.: 2005: 40;
Simple: Days: 2004: 10;
Simple: Days: 2005: 10;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 2;
Complex: No.: 2005: 4;
Complex: Days: 2004: 20;
Complex: Days: 2005: 15;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 5;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Department of Energy Headquarters;
Simple: No.: 2004: 395;
Simple: No.: 2005: 384;
Simple: Days: 2004: 81;
Simple: Days: 2005: 41;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[A] Component did not exist.
[End of table]
Department of the Interior:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: Department of the Interior;
Simple: No.: 2004: 4,126;
Simple: No.: 2005: 6,206;
Simple: Days: 2004: 3-834;
Simple: Days: 2005: 2-43;
Simple: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: 30;
Complex: No.: 2005: 189;
Complex: Days: 2004: 0-99;
Complex: Days: 2005: 28-89;
Complex: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 63;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 25;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 2-64;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1-15;
Expedited: ±: ~.
Component: Office of the Secretary;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: 99;
Complex: Days: 2005: 89;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 64;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 2;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Office of the Inspector General;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 834;
Simple: Days: 2005: 7;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 2;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Office of the Solicitor;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 15;
Simple: Days: 2005: 18;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of Surface mining;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 21;
Simple: Days: 2005: 13;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: 0;
Complex: Days: 2005: 55;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Minerals Management Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 22;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 28;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 14;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bureau of Land Management;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 23;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: 56;
Complex: Days: 2005: 57;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 6;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 35;
Simple: Days: 2005: 29;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 10;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 15;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: National Park Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 20;
Simple: Days: 2005: 19;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 10;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bureau of Reclamation;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 20;
Simple: Days: 2005: 18;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: 8;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: U.S. Geological Survey;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 18;
Simple: Days: 2005: 14;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Simple: No.: 2004: (a);
Simple: No.: 2005: (a);
Simple: Days: 2004: 158;
Simple: Days: 2005: 43;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: (a);
Complex: No.: 2005: (a);
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: (a);
Expedited: No.: 2005: (a);
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[A] Statistics not broken down by component.
Note: The Department of Interior reported the number of requests
processed as a department, not by individual components.
[End of table]
Department of Justice:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[A] Component did not exist.
[B] In addition to the expedited track, the FBI maintains three tracks
for requests: small (0 to 500 pages), medium (501 to 2,500 pages), and
large (more than 2,500 pages). The former is reported in the "simple
requests" category; the latter two are reported as "complex requests."
Therefore FBI's complex requests were excluded from analysis:
[C] Justice Management Division used average days opposed to median
days, so it was excluded:
[End of table]
Department of Labor:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of table]
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
Department of Transportation:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: Office of the Secretary of Transportation;
Simple: No.: 2004: 320;
Simple: No.: 2005: 150;
Simple: Days: 2004: 1;
Simple: Days: 2005: 1;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 394;
Complex: No.: 2005: 87;
Complex: Days: 2004: 82;
Complex: Days: 2005: 77;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 10;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 30;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of the Inspector General;
Simple: No.: 2004: 60;
Simple: No.: 2005: 50;
Simple: Days: 2004: 6;
Simple: Days: 2005: 8;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 46;
Complex: No.: 2005: 34;
Complex: Days: 2004: 51;
Complex: Days: 2005: 64;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 3;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 57;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Federal Aviation Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 5,162;
Simple: No.: 2005: 4,401;
Simple: Days: 2004: 4;
Simple: Days: 2005: 3;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 2,231;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2,179;
Complex: Days: 2004: 31;
Complex: Days: 2005: 28;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 45;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 46;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 8;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 9;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Federal Highway Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 331;
Simple: No.: 2005: 294;
Simple: Days: 2004: 9;
Simple: Days: 2005: 16;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 30;
Complex: No.: 2005: 31;
Complex: Days: 2004: 30;
Complex: Days: 2005: 134;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 17;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 13;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Federal Railroad Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 524;
Complex: No.: 2005: 451;
Complex: Days: 2004: 95;
Complex: Days: 2005: 90;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 367;
Complex: No.: 2005: 263;
Complex: Days: 2004: 23;
Complex: Days: 2005: 20;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Federal Transit Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 192;
Simple: No.: 2005: 199;
Simple: Days: 2004: 68;
Simple: Days: 2005: 29;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation;
Simple: No.: 2004: 36;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: 18;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 33;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 20;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Maritime Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 124;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 30;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 155;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 30;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Research and Special programs Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 85;
Simple: No.: 2005: 42;
Simple: Days: 2004: 19;
Simple: Days: 2005: 15;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 89;
Complex: No.: 2005: 75;
Complex: Days: 2004: 135;
Complex: Days: 2005: 40;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 11;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 5;
Expedited: ±: =.
Component: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 778;
Complex: No.: 2005: 823;
Complex: Days: 2004: 58;
Complex: Days: 2005: 31;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
Simple: No.: 2004: 46;
Simple: No.: 2005: 67;
Simple: Days: 2004: 5;
Simple: Days: 2005: 11;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 6;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 20;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Education:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: Education;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,566;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,874;
Simple: Days: 2004: 0-30;
Simple: Days: 2005: 35;
Simple: Days: ±: ~;
Complex: No.: 2004: 442;
Complex: No.: 2005: 329;
Complex: Days: 2004: 2-134;
Complex: Days: 2005: 66;
Complex: Days: ±: ~;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 74;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 16;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 3-21;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 24;
Expedited: Days: ±: ~.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Environmental Protection Agency:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: Headquarters;
Simple: No.: 2004: 2,188;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,717;
Simple: Days: 2004: 19;
Simple: Days: 2005: 19;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1;
Complex: No.: 2005: 42;
Complex: Days: 2004: 170;
Complex: Days: 2005: 58;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 6;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 2;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 16;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 20;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Region 1 New England Region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 317;
Simple: No.: 2005: 249;
Simple: Days: 2004: 19;
Simple: Days: 2005: 118;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2;
Complex: Days: 2004: 29;
Complex: Days: 2005: 46;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 2 New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands and 7 Tribal nations;
Simple: No.: 2004: 2,949;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,912;
Simple: Days: 2004: 27;
Simple: Days: 2005: 30;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 7;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2;
Complex: Days: 2004: 49;
Complex: Days: 2005: 40;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 9;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 8;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Region 3 Mid-Atlantic;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,748;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,699;
Simple: Days: 2004: 15;
Simple: Days: 2005: 13;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 9;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 4;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 7;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 4 Southeast region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,034;
Simple: No.: 2005: 852;
Simple: Days: 2004: 21;
Simple: Days: 2005: 19;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 5;
Complex: No.: 2005: 71;
Complex: Days: 2004: 75;
Complex: Days: 2005: 41;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 6;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 5 Mid-West Region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 2,011;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,920;
Simple: Days: 2004: 18;
Simple: Days: 2005: 18;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 2;
Complex: No.: 2005: 3;
Complex: Days: 2004: 70;
Complex: Days: 2005: 30;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 6 South Central Region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 860;
Simple: No.: 2005: 624;
Simple: Days: 2004: 18;
Simple: Days: 2005: 32;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 353;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 2;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 109;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 7 America's Heartland Region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 651;
Simple: No.: 2005: 767;
Simple: Days: 2004: 23;
Simple: Days: 2005: 27;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 166;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 8 Mountains and Plains Region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 387;
Simple: No.: 2005: 332;
Simple: Days: 2004: 13;
Simple: Days: 2005: 15;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 9 Pacific Southwest;
Simple: No.: 2004: 725;
Simple: No.: 2005: 588;
Simple: Days: 2004: 16;
Simple: Days: 2005: 18;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 39;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 38;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 6;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Region 10 Pacific Northwest Region;
Simple: No.: 2004: 454;
Simple: No.: 2005: 273;
Simple: Days: 2004: 20;
Simple: Days: 2005: 20;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 19;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 27;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
General Services Administration:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: GSA.
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: Days: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,182;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1,561;
Complex: Days: 2004: 14;
Complex: Days: 2005: 14;
Complex: Days: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited:±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Health and Human Services:
Two tables are provided for this department, because its components
report both multitrack (simple and complex) processing and single-track
processing.
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[A] Component did not exist.
[End of table]
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: Headquarters;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,676;
Simple: No.: 2005: 984;
Simple: Days: 2004: 95;
Simple: Days: 2005: 65;
Simple: ±: - ;
Complex: No.: 2004: 248;
Complex: No.: 2005: 271;
Complex: Days: 2004: 161;
Complex: Days: 2005: 160;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 70;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 74;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 42;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 22;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Field;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,510;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,150;
Simple: Days: 2004: 21;
Simple: Days: 2005: 21;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 10;
Complex: No.: 2005: 15;
Complex: Days: 2004: 30;
Complex: Days: 2005: 35;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 95;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 160;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 23;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 70;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Office of Inspector General;
Simple: No.: 2004: 354;
Simple: No.: 2005: 254;
Simple: Days: 2004: 55;
Simple: Days: 2005: 45;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 15;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 15;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 9;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 9;
Expedited: ±: =.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: NASA;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,069;
Simple: No.: 2005: 938;
Simple: Days: 2004: 18;
Simple: Days: 2005: 19;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 454;
Complex: No.: 2005: 410;
Complex: Days: 2004: 33;
Complex: Days: 2005: 49;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 44;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 3;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 26;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 15;
Expedited: ±: -.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: NRC;
Simple: No.: 2004: 357;
Simple: No.: 2005: 303;
Simple: Days: 2004: 11;
Simple: Days: 2005: 12;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 27;
Complex: No.: 2005: 28;
Complex: Days: 2004: 47;
Complex: Days: 2005: 75;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 5;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 14;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 60;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 20;
Expedited: ±: -.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
National Science Foundation:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: NSF;
Single: No.: 2004: 309;
Single: No.: 2005: 266;
Single: Days: 2004: 20;
Single: Days: 2005: 14;
Single: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Office of Personnel Management:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: OPM;
Single: No.: 2004: 9,310;
Single: No.: 2005: 10,898;
Single: Days: 2004: 9;
Single: Days: 2005: 14;
Single: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 2;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Small Business Administration:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: SBA;
Single: No.: 2004: 1,927;
Single: No.: 2005: 3,737;
Single: Days: 2004: 5;
Single: Days: 2005: 7;
Single: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Social Security Administration:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: SSA;
Simple: No.: 2004: 397;
Simple: No.: 2005: 364;
Simple: Days: 2004: 19;
Simple: Days: 2005: 15;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 882;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1,014;
Complex: Days: 2004: 37;
Complex: Days: 2005: 39;
Complex: Days: ±: +.
Agency: SSA;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,321;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,555;
Simple: Days: 2004:14;
Simple: Days: 2005: 10;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 31;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: 17;
Complex: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
Note: The tables exclude SSA's category of "simple requests handled by
non-FOIA staff" and "simple request for Social Security number
applications and other Office of Earnings Operations records." The
category SSA labels "fast track" was reported under "single track."
[End of table]
Department of State:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Agency: State;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,236;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,647;
Simple: Days: 2004: 6;
Simple: Days: 2005: 14;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 3,710;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2,216;
Complex: Days: 2004: 209;
Complex: Days: 2005: 142;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 17;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 7;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 184;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 136;
Expedited: ±: -.
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of the Treasury:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: The Departmental Offices;
Simple: No.: 2004: 332;
Simple: No.: 2005: 307;
Simple: Days: 2004: 2;
Simple: Days: 2005: 2;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 782;
Complex: No.: 2005: 790;
Complex: Days: 2004: 172;
Complex: Days: 2005: 251;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 168;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 86;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 201;
Complex: No.: 2005: 17;
Complex: Days: 2004: 78;
Complex: Days: 2005: 93;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
Simple: No.: 2004: 322;
Simple: No.: 2005: 4,635;
Simple: Days: 2004: 10;
Simple: Days: 2005: 2;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 8,030;
Complex: No.: 2005: 179;
Complex: Days: 2004: 50;
Complex: Days: 2005: 73;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bureau of Engraving and Printing;
Simple: No.: 2004: 69;
Simple: No.: 2005: 76;
Simple: Days: 2004: 4;
Simple: Days: 2005: 3;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 44;
Complex: No.: 2005: 12;
Complex: Days: 2004: 60;
Complex: Days: 2005: 31;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Financial Management Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 529;
Complex: No.: 2005: 351;
Complex: Days: 2004: 7;
Complex: Days: 2005: 10;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Internal Revenue Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 51,985;
Complex: No.: 2005: 42,533;
Complex: Days: 2004: 21;
Complex: Days: 2005: 21;
Complex: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: United States Mint;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 67;
Complex: No.: 2005: 316;
Complex: Days: 2004: 15;
Complex: Days: 2005: 15;
Complex: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Bureau of the Public Debt;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 91;
Complex: No.: 2005: 90;
Complex: Days: 2004: 4;
Complex: Days: 2005: 3;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of Thrift Supervision;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,827;
Complex: No.: 2005: 4,003;
Complex: Days: 2004: 15;
Complex: Days: 2005: 12;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 2;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 208;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 4;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 256;
Complex: No.: 2005: 161;
Complex: Days: 2004: 172;
Complex: Days: 2005: 30;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 10;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 18;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 6;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 32;
Complex: No.: 2005: 122;
Complex: Days: 2004: 99;
Complex: Days: 2005: 95;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Agriculture:
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
Component: Agricultural Marketing Service; Simple: No.: 2004: 139;
Simple: No.: 2005: 120;
Simple: Days: 2004: 19;
Simple: Days: 2005: 22;
Simple: Days: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 435;
Simple: No.: 2005: 922;
Simple: Days: 2004: 77;
Simple: Days: 2005: 90;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 59;
Complex: No.: 2005: 193;
Complex: Days: 2004: 800;
Complex: Days: 2005: 1,277;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 37;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 20;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 53;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 40;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Departmental Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 47;
Simple: No.: 2005: 53;
Simple: Days: 2004: 35;
Simple: Days: 2005: 29;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 7;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Farm Service Agency;
Simple: No.: 2004: 32;
Simple: No.: 2005: 44;
Simple: Days: 2004: 16;
Simple: Days: 2005: 14;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 190;
Simple: No.: 2005: 137;
Simple: Days: 2004: 6;
Simple: Days: 2005: 15;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Farm Service Agency;
Simple: No.: 2004: 30,430;
Simple: No.: 2005: 41,743;
Simple: Days: 2004: 14;
Simple: Days: 2005: 2;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 22,377;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1,155;
Complex: Days: 2004: 54;
Complex: Days: 2005: 10;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 476;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 247;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 13;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 1;
Expedited: ±: -.
Component: Forest Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 1,846;
Simple: No.: 2005: 1,426;
Simple: Days: 2004: 15;
Simple: Days: 2005: 18;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,807;
Complex: No.: 2005: 2,196;
Complex: Days: 2004: 21;
Complex: Days: 2005: 18;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 5;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 42;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 8;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 14;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Food Safety and Inspection Service;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 544;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 26;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 535;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: 73;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration;
Simple: No.: 2004: 52;
Simple: No.: 2005: 113;
Simple: Days: 2004: 10;
Simple: Days: 2005: 8;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards;
Simple: No.: 2004: 23;
Simple: No.: 2005: 44;
Simple: Days: 2004: 5;
Simple: Days: 2005: 8;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: National Appeals Division;
Simple: No.: 2004: 322;
Simple: No.: 2005: 358;
Simple: Days: 2004: 15;
Simple: Days: 2005: 18;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 6;
Complex: No.: 2005: 12;
Complex: Days: 2004: 17;
Complex: Days: 2005: 16;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 2;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 4;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 9;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Office of Budget and Program Analysis;
Simple: No.: 2004: 4;
Simple: No.: 2005: 7;
Simple: Days: 2004: 1;
Simple: Days: 2005: 2;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of Communications;
Simple: No.: 2004: 339;
Simple: No.: 2005: 303;
Simple: Days: 2004: 18;
Simple: Days: 2005: 24;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of the Chief Financial Officer;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 36;
Complex: No.: 2005: 19;
Complex: Days: 2004: 15;
Complex: Days: 2005: 16;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of the Chief Information Officer;
Simple: No.: 2004: 2;
Simple: No.: 2005: 10;
Simple: Days: 2004: 1;
Simple: Days: 2005: 10;
Simple: ±: +;
Complex: No.: 2004: 0;
Complex: No.: 2005: 0;
Complex: Days: 2004: n/a;
Complex: Days: 2005: n/a;
Complex: ±: [Empty];
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of Civil Rights;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 82;
Complex: No.: 2005: 43;
Complex: Days: 2004: 15;
Complex: Days: 2005: 28;
Complex: ±: +;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of General Counsel;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 12;
Complex: No.: 2005: 12;
Complex: Days: 2004: 34;
Complex: Days: 2005: 34;
Complex: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Office of the Inspector General;
Simple: No.: 2004: 133;
Simple: No.: 2005: 178;
Simple: Days: 2004: 5;
Simple: Days: 2005: 4;
Simple: ±: -;
Complex: No.: 2004: 47;
Complex: No.: 2005: 58;
Complex: Days: 2004: 112;
Complex: Days: 2005: 102;
Complex: ±: - ;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 5;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 7;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 1;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 3;
Expedited: ±: +.
Component: Research, Education and Economics;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 87;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: 15;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 164;
Complex: No.: 2005: 115;
Complex: Days: 2004: 15;
Complex: Days: 2005: 15;
Complex: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 4;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: 15;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Risk Management Agency;
Simple: No.: 2004: 73;
Simple: No.: 2005: 57;
Simple: Days: 2004: 20;
Simple: Days: 2005: 20;
Simple: ±: =;
Complex: No.: 2004: 7;
Complex: No.: 2005: 25;
Complex: Days: 2004: 60;
Complex: Days: 2005: 40;
Complex: ±: -;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 1;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: 5;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
Component: Rural Development;
Simple: No.: 2004: 0;
Simple: No.: 2005: 0;
Simple: Days: 2004: n/a;
Simple: Days: 2005: n/a;
Simple: ±: [Empty];
Complex: No.: 2004: 1,484;
Complex: No.: 2005: 1,623;
Complex: Days: 2004: 12;
Complex: Days: 2005: 12;
Complex: ±: =;
Expedited: No.: 2004: 0;
Expedited: No.: 2005: 0;
Expedited: Days: 2004: n/a;
Expedited: Days: 2005: n/a;
Expedited: ±: [Empty].
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Department of Veterans Affairs:
The department reports all processing in one track, but it refers to
this track as complex, rather than single track.
No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
change from 2004 to 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
+ increase:
- decrease:
= no change:
~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.
[A] Component did not exist.
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] See 5 U.S.C. § 552.
[2] Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2005).
[3] The agencies included are listed in table 2; these agencies are the
24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus the
Central Intelligence Agency.
[4] Two GAO analysts independently analyzed each agency's plan to
determine if it contained objective goals and timetables for reducing
the backlog. When the analysts disagreed, they discussed the reasons
for their differences and arrived at a consensus.
[5] We exclude SSA's statistics from our discussion of requests
received, requests processed, and their disposition, because a change
in the agency's counting methodology resulted in a report of over 17
million requests for fiscal year 2005, for a jump of about 16 million
from the year before. Including these statistics in the governmentwide
data would obscure year-to-year comparisons. This issue is discussed
further on page
[6] These statistics include numbers reported by SSA, because they are
not affected by the approximately 17 million requests mentioned in
footnote 5, for which SSA does not keep statistics on processing times
or pending requests.
[7] The act has been amended several times.
[8] Fees may be waived when requests are determined to be in the public
interest.
[9] See 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
[10] According to SSA, its field organization is decentralized to
provide services at the local level, and includes 10 regional offices,
6 processing centers, and approximately 1500 field offices.
[11] This provision was added by the Freedom of Information Reform Act
of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570).
[12] See OMB, Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and
Guidelines, 52 FR 10011 (Mar. 27, 1987), effective April 27, 1987. Also
in 1987, the Department of Justice issued guidelines on waiving fees
when requests are determined to be in the public interest. Under the
guidelines, requests for waivers or reduction of fees are to be
considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both the public
interest and the requester's commercial interests.
[13] 5 U.S.C.§ 552(e).
[14] GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).
[15] GAO, Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-02-493
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); Information Management: Update on
Freedom of Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2004); and Information Management:
Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, GAO-05-648T
(Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2005).
[16] According to SSA officials, most of these simple requests are for
essentially the same types of information, such as copies of earnings
records and verifications of monthly benefit amounts or Social Security
numbers. The agency considers these requests to be covered by the
Privacy Act and by FOIA; requests covered by both acts are to be
reported in agencies' annual FOIA reports.
[17] Denials can occur in the case of discrepancies in the requests,
such as incorrect Social Security numbers, for example.
[18] See GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001), and Information Management: Update
on Freedom of Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2004).
[19] The Executive Order refers to "requests for records [that] have
not been responded to within the statutory time limit (backlog)." The
statute sets a time limit of 20 business days for agencies to determine
whether to comply with a FOIA request. The law does not set a specific
deadline for providing releasable records (although it does require
agencies to make them available promptly), but in practice, agencies
generally respond to requesters in one step--by providing or denying
records--rather than in two steps--notifying requesters of their
determination of whether to comply and if so providing records. In
keeping with this practice, agencies have interpreted the Executive
Order as referring to responses that provide or deny records, rather
than responses providing a determination.
Justice officials told us in 2001 that, as a practical matter, they
consider the FOIA requirement to report data on median processing days
to be the basis for measuring compliance with the 20-day requirement.
GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).
[20] The Executive Order states that plans shall include "specific
activities that the agency will implement to eliminate or reduce the
agency's FOIA backlog," as well as "concrete milestones, with specific
timetables and outcomes to be achieved;" these milestones will be such
that they can be used to "measure and evaluate the agency's success in
the implementation of the plan."
[21] According to Justice's guidance, "Agencies should consider a
number of measures of timeliness, including number of pending requests,
median processing times, average processing times (in addition, if that
is feasible), number of requests processed in a year, duration of
oldest pending requests, etc." "In determining such appropriate
measurements, agencies should be able to carefully determine which ones
best fit their individual circumstances, which can vary greatly from
one agency to another."
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
